On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:37:04 -0500, atheist@
home.com wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 21:27:04 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>
optonline.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:17:11 -0500, atheist@
home.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:26:44 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>>
optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:19:32 -0700 (PDT), cazayoux@
nortel.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
>>>>>> religious beliefs as though they were real?
>>
>>That and other explanations were ignored.
>>
>>>>>Obviously other beliefs are in the world, evidenced by the existence
>>>>>of so may beliefs, including atheism.
>>>>>No need to be so defensive, Chris.
>>
>>That was a lie.
>>
>>>>Atheism isn't a belief,moron.
>>
>>After this had been made clear.
>>
>>>>Why don't you learn to read for comprehension instead of lying about
>>>>people being defensive?
>>
>>He didn't answer this.
>>
>>>>>It's been my experience that the one hollering in a discussion is the
>>>>>least confident in what they are saying.
>>>>>They don't speak, they yell, as if that make the point better.
>>>>>Call off the dogs, lower your tone.
>>>>
>>>>Now you're amateur-psychologising your own lies.
>>>>
>>>>>I'm glad to have met people here that explain rather than rant.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't rant, liar.
>>>
>>>Sorry, you most certainly did.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>You were a bit aggressive.
>It isn't easy being a theist and having your beliefs challenged in the
>way that some of us do.
>He or she seemed to be asking honest questions with no intent to
>proselytize.
>
>>It had already been explained that atheism wasn't a belief, and that
>>an atheist is somebody who isn't theist.
>
>That's a difficult concept for some people and it's understandable.
>
>
>>He ignored explanatuons about our being in the rest of the world
>>outside his religion, etc, its being merely somebody else's religious
>>belief etc.
>
>Patience ;)
>
>>The real world consequences are obvious.
>>
>>Yet he asked the same question again.
>>
>>And amateur-psychologised the response.
>
>No great crime.
>I'm interested in the conversation and what he or she has to say.
>I can personally afford to give a little leeway.
Maybe, but when you take the trouble to explain that outside the
religion whether you are atheist or eg a Hindu etc it's no different
than eg Zeus is to him.
Not something to believe exists or doesn't exist. It's a character in
the Greek myths, something they worshipped, prayed to, sacrificed to
and wove stories about. A cultural phenomenon.
Which is why I made the remark about backed into a corner.
Because I've seen far too often, believers saying they "believe Zeus
doesn't exist" when I doubt they give it a thought except in the
context of the Greek myths.
Having committed themselves to inventing a position we don't have,
using over-simplified language and meaning, they have to use the same
"logic" themselves for Zeus and all the others. Suddenly developing a
view they never had before.
If we use their restricted vocabulary, meanings and logic it is
impossible to get our POV through to them.
It's almost Orwellian. When words or meanings disappear it becomes
impossible to explain concepts that use them. In "1984", "free" meant
"not costing you anything". The concept of free as in freedom didn't
exist any more.
This is why I insist on using more exact words and meanings to try to
get through to them.
It's a mistake to say we "don't believe in God" because that gets
interpreted as "they don't believe in something that exists". Or
"believe God doesn't exist" which to them is the same as "they believe
something supremely important whose existence is obvious, doesn't
exist". They can't even tell the difference anyway.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand."
- Bertrand Russell
>atheist@home#1554
